warri0r45

Haha, I was so going to mention Darwin awards yet seems like everyone beat me to it.

What, you think we boo when we don't get service because the service goes to help dead people? They didn't know what was going on. Do you read it? It said they didn't know what was going on. Perhaps if you did your research you'd figure out that that Qantas club check in queue (old woman) is on the first floor of the domestic terminal while terminal check-in (1000 angry people) is on the ground floor. http://www.bne.com.au/content/standard. ... rminalMaps If it was in the international terminal, then you'd find the qantas club lounge on level 3 and check in on level 2.

How stupid. What else can I say? PC gone mad.

No, it's more like 6_ kilos :P . Which is like 9 pounds or something. Hate conversions. I think it's about time for you yanks to adopt SI units. :P

Ejaculate? Oh boy, I hope I'm right, or I'm going to seem disgusting.. Yes, it looks like a man just unloaded into a pretty girl's mouth. Limpbizkit, you can't stop the connotation unless everyone immediately knows what it is, which they won't, because they'll immediately think it's something else...

Actually, I'd prefer that you expound upon your point rather than evading the issue. Your belief is already out there (more or less), so if you really think it's true, explain and defend it dude :) . Exactly. I don't mind in the slightest that Kelem believes in astrology, I just want to know why he thinks it's true.

The original post took me a while, bits and pieces of research over a week or something. Nothing too hardcore. The post just then just took me a few casual minutes. I'm on holidays at the moment so I've got plenty more time to do a little research here and there on whatever I'm interested in. And why do you want me to get into touch with your science teahcer? :uhh: :P The deal is if I want to have an opinion on something, I just prefer to know a little about it and know where the science lies (given it's a scientific issue, of course). Like I've said before, we often forget we need to get our knowledge from somewhere - it's why we go to school. Unless we think something up ourselves knowledge is never our own and even then you're most likely gonna base your thoughts on alredy known ideas. I just prefer to get it from the right places and make sure what I know is true. I could still be wrong, but at least I can be more sure the more I know and the more the facts coincide with what I think to be true. Probably the consequence of being totally engrossed in science I suppose. [/spiel] Where excatly do you go to do research, ect? PM me if its something you don't want to share publicly please :) I'm just a uni student. My research is personal. If by where I go you mean what sites I go to, these are some good choices (the first two are the most esteemed science journals in the world - the first is American and the second English): http://stke.sciencemag.org/ http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html http://www.pnas.org/ http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ Alternately, just go to google scholar and most of the results of your query will be peer reviewed scientific papers - the best in critical studies, reports, tests and scientific knowledge.

The original post took me a while, bits and pieces of research over a week or something. Nothing too hardcore. The post just then just took me a few casual minutes. I'm on holidays at the moment so I've got plenty more time to do a little research here and there on whatever I'm interested in. And why do you want me to get into touch with your science teahcer? :uhh: :P The deal is if I want to have an opinion on something, I just prefer to know a little about it and know where the science lies (given it's a scientific issue, of course). Like I've said before, we often forget we need to get our knowledge from somewhere - it's why we go to school. Unless we think something up ourselves knowledge is never our own and even then you're most likely gonna base your thoughts on alredy known ideas. I just prefer to get it from the right places and make sure what I know is true. I could still be wrong, but at least I can be more sure the more I know and the more the facts coincide with what I think to be true. Probably the consequence of being totally engrossed in science I suppose. [/spiel] :lol: :P

Whose side of the story is that? You're being fed crap. That's no one's side. That's a fools position. Exactly the same as Al Gore's 'An inconvenient half truth'. As for your ICECAP web site, I don't see anything particularly out of line with the data I've seen. They don't deny that the climate is changing, they don't deny that man plays a role and they do suggest that solar variations play a role, which is all true. They are skeptical of man's dominant position in global warming, which I dispute, and I'll look for what literature they have to back up their position. Ok maybe you can explain how humans caused Global warming on Mars? Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Global warming hits Mars too: study Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about. Haha. This is too good. I've presented an exhaustive post 3 times now on these forums which details that exact problem, debunks it and uses the exact article you cited to do so, among other articles and scientific papers. Did you even read into this article? It's about a (note, one) global warming skeptic who believes that mars' warming hints at the sun being the cause when it then goes on to present the mainstream's position as to why this is not necessarily the case. In my exhaustive post, I also cited a swag of papers which detail the fact that the sun can not possibly account for the most recent warming trends. Did you even read your second article either? It details albedo variations causing the change in mars' climate in a positive feedback system that requires no change in solar output. Interestingly, it mentions an article I've cited before in a previous post which is the catalyst for the article you cited. If you're interested in the post I mentioned I've presented 3 times before: [hide]General Reading: [1] [2] [3] [4] EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years. Articles: [1] See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. [2] See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm. [3] See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years. [4] Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm. [5] Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented. Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming. This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7] So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too? [8] [9] [10] So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required. [11] Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages. Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change: [12] [13] [14] [15] [/hide] Direct quote from the second article you linked to, regarding why Mars is heating up; "The explanation is in the dirt. " Our global warming is hardly making Mars heat up, but then again, I doubt Martian dust storms is making Earth heating up. :wall: You aren't getting it. Dust storms on mars are causing 'martian warming', which are completely proven to be non-human related (Due to the lack of humans on mars). (1) Therefore it is proven that global warming can happen without human interference, which suggests that the earth may be undergoing the same effect because the results are proportional (Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower). (2) However, I think that it is now completely impossible to pinpoint the cause of global warming because both sides have valid evidence, and the whole conspiracy theory is too complex to unravel. My question is; why are we arguing amongst each other trying to point the blame? Aren't we supposed to be getting on with inventing fuel which doesn't need crude oil to function, which will run out in the next 50 years? Let's face it, we can't control global warming, we just need to adapt to it until it passes. We may be able to control the CO2, but we need to get our act together in that area anyway. Crude Oil is running out, so let's do something about it. (1) And where is all the dust on earth aiding to these albedo variations? There is no such effect on planet earth (well, no such change in said effect), yet there is something analagous which is changing - CO2 and other greenhouse gasses participating in the greenhouse effect, warming the planet. Mars' albedo variations are somewhat similar. The dust particles prevent reflection of radiation back out to space and thus dust storms there trap masses of heat. (2) So, what's the evidence of the other side? The peer reviewed journals? Because I've presented a number which suggest something like solar irradiance flat out can not account for the most recent warming trends - only the greenhouse effect can make up the numbers. As for the conspiracy theory being to hard to unravel, I disagree. It can be summed up by the fact that oil companies don't want to lose profits so they vest interest in fooling people that it's not their product to blame.

You're right. Hating them solely because of their lyrics is silly, and people who do so usually just ride the crazy-awesome-Linkin-Park-hating-bandwagon and their only excuse to "hate" the band is because their "lyrics suck", since that's a valid enough reason (in their mind) which generally doesn't require a whole lot of explanation or knowledge about music in general. It's easy to get away with such comments. I mean sure, their lyrics might not be top notch, but jesus christ there are way worse. The reason I don't like their music (note: I didn't say "hate") is because there's just nothing interesting about it at all. The guitar parts are basically just made up of powerchords in drop D and very basic drumming. It seems as though the only person in that band that has an ounce of talent is Hahn. So their music just sounds really poor in my opinion. I think you're right. I'm guilty of getting on that bandwagon without thinking about it enough. #-o

Your avatar immediately reminded me of the poem from the booklet of that album which I've always absolutely adored: "I write messages on money. It's my own form of social protest. A letter printed on paper that no one will destroy passed indiscriminately across race, class and gender lines and written in the blood that keeps the beast alive. A quiet little hijacking on the way to the check-out counter And a federal crime. I hope that someone will find my message one day when they really need it. Like I do." The artwork ends with a photograph of an American one dollar bill with the message "YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE" written on the back. Poem by Josh Koppel.

I had my last exam for the year this morning!! I'm now officially no longer a first year uni student. :D 2 years to go before I get one of those pieces of paper that sais I do stuff good. :P But for now, I've got months of holidays to kill. 8-)

I'm leaving to catch the bus for a uni exam in a few mins. O:) Just 2 more, including today's, then a long holiday.

No specific memories really, just learning a lot and being challenged to think.

Total legend. I'm glad it looks like he can cement a spot in the test team. He would have got a century in the first innings, but of course you've always got to declare without getting to carried away with personal achievement. And I totally agree, it's great to see Mitchell Johnson snagging a few. He could turn into a key area of our attack in years to come.

I tend to agree. Also, like Nadril said, a sample size greater than a pissy 100 would be better.

I did attack somebody? Basically i said that most people would believe just about anything as long as it is told them in a sincere voice. Creationist are biased because of their believe in a very distinct kind of god, but we are all biased. It's just that many people believe that logic and reason is above bias. You could put it as simple as: What makes something that is logical true, or that is true according to observation more true than something that is true according to believe? You say things are real, because you can see them, but in turn define reality as the sum of the things you see. That is circular logic. From a certain point of view logic is always circular. I just want to point out that there are good reasons to believe that the world isn't as mundane as it seems (although even i have a hard time to believe what i write.) Maybe it is. What do i know? Maybe i'm just desperate. I think this is basically what this is all about. I think I don't know what you're talking about. You've brought up science and your disaproval of it in one way or another in talks about astrology before. I was commenting that this is not the way to do things. Dismissing science does not make your ideas any more true. If you want to convince people in this forum you'll have to do so without trying to discredit the opposition. An idea can only go so far untill it requires explanation of itself and not of those which oppose it. Hence the creationism reference. Their overwhelming preoccupation is not proving themselves true yet proving others false. It's a very nonsensical, logically fallacious and cop-outish way of trying to prove yourself true, if that is at all what you want to do. I'll assume it is because you dislike people dismissing astrology and are an adherant to it and you seem to always participate in such topics. Other than that, I don't see where your views of the mundane nature or lack thereof of the universe come into it (or much of what you typed above, for that matter).

I might do that, but i'm not that interested in the subject. Besides it is pretty hard to find publishers today. .... That's what books are for. If I was in your position and I knew my idea was true or had some truth to it I would be downright delighted to explain it to people who didn't know about it.

I want to knit on this idea. I have the impression that many people don't "believe" in science for scientifc reasons. People seem to mostly believe what they are told to be true. Actually it goes so far that i have no reason not to believe that people dismissing astrology do that because of ignorance. They dismiss astrology, god, the easter bunny and idk what with the same certainty they affirm that everything "science" says (as if science could say anything. Usually what they mean is some people told me that some scientists thinks that, or i read somewhere that science says this or that is so.) is true. It is more likely that everything science says is false, because almost every theory becomes refuted someday. That is what science is all about: Finding models to explain the world (by certain means). I also often have the impression that people believe there is somekind of unified body of scientists who perfectly agree on what is true and what isn't. Sure they conform on some things, but there is much dispute, many unverified theories, much controversy on about just what constitutes a theory to be verified and for every verified theory there is somebody out there, who already has doubts. The much hyped string theory has hardly any solid evidence from what i read (and that's this point again. Most we "know" we base on something we read. It may sound more or less convincing, but only in very rare cases we go so deep into the materia, that we even could make reasonable claims on the truth of it. My conclusion of all this is that our thinking is so deeplay biased (i haven't even begun on explaining how i came to that conclusion) that you cannot believe anything. From that point i went out and ultimately came to the conclusion (would be a very lengthy topic on it's on) that you can believe everything. It shows a lot when your only out is to revert to talking about science just because it calls what you believe in bunk. You need to swallow your pride and support your own ideas without attacking others. You sound exactly like a creationist.

There were threads about astrology before and i tried to explain before, but i did a poor job at it. Most i know about this subject comes from books. One huge problem is that almost everybody, even about all scientists trying to disprove astrology are basing their ideas mostly upon hearsay and newspaper astrology. (Nobody takes newspaper astrology less serious than astrologers.) Another problem is that astrology doesn't provide quantifiable data. Hm.. i doesn't really serve any purpose trying lengthy to explain, what the theories are why astrology is supposed to work, how it works, what statements you are supposed to be able to make based on astrology and so forth. Since i got most my information (as mentioned) from books, i don't really know any quality links. I expect plenty of the astrology stuff on the web to be garbage, but i'm sure there are serious sites out there to. If you really are interested, you'll probably find sources that show you what astrology is all about. What i'll probably never know is, whether fuzzy statements are made because astrology is bogus, or because the data is interpreted insufficiently, wich would be a very reasonable explaination because the very nature of the data (and the data is precise) makes it hard to interprete. One problem i always had with astrology is that i have a very hard time translating a very clear statement like "jupiter opposition mars". The very act of translating such a precise and beautiful statement has to make it fuzzy. That are reasons why i have a hard time to understand, why anybody could just outrightly dismiss astrology out of scientific reasons. In principle it would be possible to design experiments to verfy it, but it would be insanely hard to come up with an appropriate setup. I can understand why people don't believe in statements based on astrology, but i disagree with their reasons. That newspaper horoscopes are vague at best is the most invalid reason of them all. I have yet to see an attempt to disprove astrology, where the basic assumptions and questions are valid. The best thing i have seen so far is a experiment by Darren Brown. Unfortunately i can't find the link anymore. In the end however he just shows that astrologers could all be applying consciously or unconsciously cold reading. I think it is very possible that it is something that is done very frequently. Still this doesn't necessarily mean astrology is bunk. A simplistic example: Neglecting all other factors of a horoscope, leos are supposed to be more outgoing then idk cancers or capricorns. If you tell any person for example: "At times you are outgoing." or even "You are very outgoing." You got a myriade of problems here. First of all (that's what cold reading is all about) you can't quantify "outgoing". There is no scale o measure it. Second the term "outgoing" is wishy washy. The data is "sun in leo". This is a clear stament. Summing up everything the sun or leo symbolizes isn't the same as the symbol itself. I try to give an example: Try to translate this to somebody who hardly knows anything about the concept of numbers: 2+5.5=7.5 Just in case you are already thinking about apples: yes that is the way we learn how numbers work, but nothing in the statement 2+5.5=7.5 implies apples in any way. It is a very precise statement, but without knowledge of mathematics it is worthless. In order to understand it, you first have to understand the principles behind it. Besides all that just because the sun is in leo doesn't mean the person has to show very much leo characteristics on the surface. Other aspects can reinforce the leo impression (and all what i am saying is very wishy washy for the outlined reasons) or they can hide it. A person with sun in cancer on the other hand can have a leo moon and a leo ascendant plus a leo mercury, venus and mars to top it off. A untrained eye would see very many leo characteristics. Basically the sun symbolizes something where outgoing is an adjective to describe it. Since everybody has the sun somewhere, everybody is outgoing, but in a different way. Facing astrology i'm inclined to say that our vocabulary is very limited. Just remember the innuit with their idk how many words for snow. To us it all is snow, or if you live in an alpine country, like i do, you might have mabye 5 words for different types of snow. I believe many insufficiecies of astrology might as well be insufficiencies in our language. I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve). So yes, i guess i do believe in astrology. I'm even claiming that you can find the sun in BlueLancers birth chart in the 8th house. I might obviously be wrong and if i am right, it proves nothing. I'm going to give you a huge tip. Stop, take a deep breath, and think of what it would take for people to understand astrology. Start from the very simple, then work your way up to the difficult stuff where you use jargon. Let me give it a shot, cutting it down to one sentence: Astrology is the idea that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence or correlate with human affairs. Now, for what you have to do to prove this: 1) Show us all the correlations. Lots of them. Make your case undeniable. 2) Show how it does this so that you can blow any other ideas as to why there exists a correlation out of the water. This will make astrology a theory rather than just a correlation. I think any reasonable person would be skeptical given the idea that the relative positions of celestial bodies actually influences our lives in any predictable way, especially in terms of people's personality, financial sucess, and sucess in relationships, etc. Given that, most people brush it under the carpet as utter bollocks. This gives you, rightly or wrongly, an uphill battle.

Heh, I would be too after last summers effort from you blokes. :D :P That 5-0 is and I'd bet will be my favourite test series of all time. It was just bloody incredible from the previous series loss and the downright desire and determination from the Aussies to get the ashes back and, of course, the retirement of some legends of the game.

That could be my greatest pet-hate of cricket of all time. I hate it when they do that for tests. And they do it for one dayers. They'll only play the session between 2pm-4pm if its a day nighter. Though I though they canceled doing that recently, since channel 9 signed a new contract. Maybe that could only be happening in Sydney. :? Hmm. Dunno. No doubt the people who have an interest in getting people to the venues and the people who have an interest in getting the telecast to the people would have to work those issues out. Only have to put up with it for 2 more days. :( Either way, I've still got 5 full test matches to enjoy throughout the holidays. That's 25 days (or less, going by how much Australia rule) of crickety goodness. :D

I thought it was 3 against Sri Lanka, but that's a very vague recall. No doubt that dosen't make much sense if it's 2 and 4, respectively. And yeah, it was pretty good there today. the only bummer about it being in Brisbane at the moment is that they only telecast after tea, i.e. virtually 2-2.5 hours play a day. I guess that's incentive to actually go to the game. Edit: Actually, yeah, you were right - 2 tests vs. Sri Lanka. Also correct on the other count.

I realise this is a niche topic but what the hell. What are your thoughts on the summer of cricket? The current test series between Aus and Sri Lanka? Favourite players? The team you follow? Going to any matches or been to any lately? Or are you generally curious about the sport? All posts welcome. For starters, today I had a lazy one at the Gabba for day 3 of the first test between Aus and Sri Lanka in Brisbane. All up there were 10 wickets, with Mitchell Johnson grabbing his first 2 test wickets ever. Aus forced the follow on and are heading into day 4 with Sri Lanka on the ropes at 2 for 80 with 260 runs required to get up to par with the Aussies first innings total (which included some cracker knocks from Jaques, Hussey and Clarke).

Well, I can actually see some sense to it, considering he purged himself from it. He was the "natural selector" afterall.